Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is more likely to comply with United Nations Resolution 1441, calling for the removal of weapons of mass destruction from his country, if he sees the U.N. Security Council "unified" in its insistence that he quit stalling and do so quickly, said Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Marc Grossman.

In a February 6 conversation with journalists, Grossman said repeatedly that the United States does not want war. But Iraqi intransigence has engendered "the dilemma or paradox of force," which he explained means, "You have to be ready for a war to avoid a war." And he stressed, "It is the Iraqis themselves who must come to the conclusion that it is time to meet the obligation that is levied on them 15 to nothing [0] by Resolution 1441."

The career foreign service officer made his comments during an interview with German and Mexican reporters via a digital video conference (DVC) arranged by the State Department's Office of Public Diplomacy as a follow-up to Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 5 presentation on Iraqi noncompliance at the United Nations.

Grossman: First thank you very much, and I apologize that I can't see the person in Germany. I hope you can hear me. Can you?

Christoph Rabe: I can hear you clearly, Mr. Grossman.

Grossman: Oh, that's excellent. Thank you very much for participating. Thank you to our colleagues in Mexico as well. I was thinking a little bit about what I could say by way of introduction. But after yesterday and today and all that you have heard and all that you have written, if it is all right with you, I think the very best use of our time might be just to go right to questions. And I'd be glad to do that, and I think the rules are to start with Germany.

Rabe: My name is Christoph Rabe, I'm an international correspondent for German business media, Handelsblatt, a daily paper. Mr. Grossman, after Secretary of State Powell's presentation yesterday at the U.N. there seems to be very little change of mindset among the big players. The Security Council itself is split and I was wondering how will the United States proceed now? How do you want to gather more support for your case?

Grossman: First off, I think that's perhaps a fair question from your point of view, but I must say that looking at it from the United States, that the audience that we were reaching for and that Secretary Powell was reaching for yesterday, I think his conversation and his presentation have had a very big impact. Perhaps of the other ministers sitting there at the table, nobody changed their minds. People came with points that they wished to make in advance, but from my perspective anyway, if I look at the press and I look around the world, I think there was an opening yesterday made by Secretary Powell, and people have started to understand a little bit better why this concerns us. As to next steps, we'll have to see. We look forward to the report of Dr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei next week. The Secretary will be reporting to our President, who will then make a decision from our perspective of what to do next, and then we look forward to further consultations with the Security Council.

Q: Will you also provide more evidence in the meantime to convince those parties who are still hesitant? I'm thinking of France and Germany of course, too.

A: You have to look at the fundamentals here. I think it's not for us to provide evidence to convince people in France or Germany or Mexico; it is for Iraq to disarm. That's the important point that I hope we might be able to get out in this conversation. As the secretary said yesterday, his purpose was to try to help people understand why Dr. Blix came to the conclusion that the Iraqis still don't understand that their responsibility is to disarm. If you'll remember, he used that quotation at the beginning of his presentation. And so what he was trying to do yesterday was have people comprehend what Dr. Blix's problem is, what Dr. ElBaradei's problem is. And so this is really not for us to provide more and more and more information, it's now for the Iraqis to disarm, as they are required to do under Resolution 1441 which passed the Security Council fifteen to nothing.

Q: Will you then agree to the French proposal to send more inspectors into Iraq?

A: We have to consider that. We're obviously always interested in listening to our friends and allies. But this is not about inspectors, with all due respect, sir. It's about whether Saddam Hussein has taken the fundamental decision to disarm. And I believe that after a fair reading and a fair listening of the secretary's presentation yesterday, one would have to come to the conclusion that they have not taken this decision. With all due respect to Foreign Minister de Villepin and to Foreign Minister Fischer and to the foreign minister of Mexico, if you wish you can pursue putting in hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of inspectors, but if the Iraqis are still going to pursue a program of deception and a program of lies, then you'll have hundreds more people failing. So I worry about this and I will worry about it until I believe that the Iraqis themselves have come to the conclusion that it's time to meet the obligation levied on them, fifteen to nothing, by Resolution 1441.

Q: Mr. Grossman, sir, what is the US deadline for Saddam to comply with 1441 now?

A: I agree with the very good statement that was made by the UK ambassador last week, which is: if you look at Resolution 687, he's now had 600 weeks to comply. And no compliance yet. He's had since November to comply with 1441; and no compliance yet. I think our president and our secretary have now talked about weeks, and not months. But let me reemphasize to both you and to our colleagues in Mexico our purpose here is to achieve this goal of disarming Iraq peacefully. It is not to have a war. And one of the reasons Secretary Powell made this very powerful presentation yesterday was to try to remind countries like Mexico, countries like Germany, Security Council countries, that if we stay unified and if we say that we are prepared to enforce Resolution 1441, then our belief is Saddam Hussein will say, "My time is up. That it is for me now to disarm." We want to do this peacefully and we want to do it quickly, and we want to do it in such a way that enhances the power of the Security Council.

Q: Do you still expect Saddam to move to open access to his arsenals and to comply with 1441?

A: Sir, we expect Saddam Hussein to disarm. That is his obligation under UN Security Council Resolution 687 since 1991, and Resolution 1441 since 2002. That's his job.

Q: Will you push for a second UN resolution, given the impression that there's not much movement by Saddam?

A: We've always said that we would consider a second resolution. I would say that you'll understand that that's a decision that our president and Secretary Powell have to make. Secretary Powell is reporting today to the president on his impressions of the Security Council meeting yesterday. I assume that he and the president will come to some conclusion here quickly, and we will see.

Q: Now Germany is not the only country which strongly rejects any involvement in the military operation in Iraq. Do you have any hope that Germany still might fall into line with the alliance of the U.S.?

A: Germany's a democracy. Germany will have to take its own decisions. I wouldn't presume to speak on behalf of Germany. And I would also, with all due respect, say that the idea that somehow people would fall in line is really not a fair characterization of what we're asking here. What we're asking people to do is support the Security Council. What we're asking people to do is support a resolution that passed fifteen to nothing. What we're asking people to do is recognize that the threat of force is, paradoxically perhaps, a way to deal with this question peacefully. So, I must with all due respect to you, reject the characterization that we're asking people to fall in line. What we're asking people to do is support a path that will strengthen the Security Council and disarm Saddam Hussein, and, if we stay united on this, to do so peacefully.

Q: How would you characterize, presently, the bilateral relations between Germany and the United States?

A: Well, it's no secret sir, that the bilateral relationship now has a disagreement over Iraq. But when you look at the totality of what we do together as NATO countries, we appreciate the constructive comments that were made by Foreign Minister Fisher on North Korea, we appreciate the fact that Germany, along with the Netherlands, is on the tenth of February taking over the ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) responsibility in Afghanistan. Interior Minister Schily is here in Washington today to talk about law enforcement cooperation, so those are all good things. But, I don't paper over, I don't ignore the fact that on this issue, we do have a disagreement. I think that's too bad.

Q: Secretary Rumsfeld yesterday characterized Germany as being in one box with Cuba or Libya. Is that an assessment you would support?

A: I think Secretary Rumsfeld is clearly able to speak for himself. I would say that Germany is an ally of the United States and in all of the areas including taking over ISAF in Afghanistan, counter-terrorism. These are all areas where we're working together. I'll leave it at that, sir.

Q: In your view, is there a serious risk in transatlantic relations breaking up?

A: Would you repeat your question? Are you saying could transatlantic relations break up?

Q: Is there a serious problem in transatlantic relations coming up over the Iraq question?

A: I think there's a disagreement in transatlantic relations over Iraq, but if you say to me that this is the end of the transatlantic relationship and it's some big crisis, no I don't think that. We're dealing here with an alliance of democracies. And every country has to come to its own conclusion, and in this case France and Germany have come to a different conclusion, perhaps, than some of the other countries. But, we had a statement from eight countries last week and from the Vilnius ten yesterday, they're democratic countries, they are able to speak for themselves. The transatlantic relationship is so large and so complicated and so important to both sides, that I don't think we ought to speak in those terms. Do we have a disagreement in this area? Yes, absolutely, and we'll continue as a community of democracies to work through it.

Q: Okay, and let me put in another question to make it a little shorter. What makes you sure you can really change a totalitarian regime into a democratic society? That is also one of the intentions going into Iraq.

A: Well, again, let me step back and be very precise about what we're talking about here. You are assuming in your question that there will be a conflict, and I do not assume that. And I want to be clear to both our Mexican and German friends; I'm not assuming there is a conflict. So, I lay that down as a base. Second thing, sir, is that if there has to be a conflict, then yes, I believe there is a vision for a future of Iraq, and that kind of vision would be a democratic Iraq. It would be multi-ethnic. It would be a unified, territorially integral Iraq. It would be an Iraq without weapons of mass destruction. It would be an Iraq at peace with its neighbors. When you say that is it possible to change from totalitarianism to democracy, I say the answer to that is yes, and we see it around the world. And you may consider this a naive point of view, but I offer it to you anyway, that I don't believe that people should be denied the chance to be in a democracy, to live in a democracy, because of their geography, or their religion, or their color, or their culture. I don't think that's right, and the older I get and the more I'm in my business the more I believe that. So Iraqi democracy someday doesn't have to be like German democracy or Mexican democracy or American democracy. But should Iraqis have the chance to live their own lives, and educate their children where they want, and not live in terror, well yes sir, I think they do, and yes sir, I think that's possible.

Q: For how long do you think, given the situation, there will be a conflict and Saddam will be removed from his rule, will there be an American authority ruling or governing Iraq? When will Iraq be put back into the hands of their own people?

A: Again, let's not assume that there's going to be a conflict. Let's not make this into a self-fulfilling prophecy. I would hope people in Germany and in Mexico, instead of thinking through what will happen after there's a conflict, will stay focused on what is required to avoid a conflict. And what is required to avoid a conflict is for the Security Council to stay united and for the message to be to Saddam Hussein that he must, must, must comply with 1441. And that's what we ought to be spending our time on. If there has to be a conflict, I think, as our president and secretary have said, our objective will be to return...to have Iraq be a sovereign country under the control of the Iraqis as quickly as possible.

Q: What does that mean, as quickly as possible?

A: There's no way I can speculate about that, and again, sir, I think we ought to spend our time and our energy getting Saddam Hussein to understand that this is the end of the line in terms of his violation of 1441 and get him to start disarming. That is the job of the Security Council at the moment. I'm told here we're out of time...Oh, I'm sorry...

Moderator: There's five minutes left.

Grossman: Five minutes. Sorry, I apologize.

Q: One final question. What kind of data did the United States hand over to Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei, who are traveling through Iraq this weekend, to improve their abilities to find what they are looking for?

A: We have been as forthcoming as we possibly can to UNMOVIC and the IAEA. We have tried to meet all of their requirements, of Dr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei, but as Dr. Blix said in his report and the secretary said yesterday, you know, if we can't get the Iraqis to agree somehow that there ought to be U2 flights and if you go back to Resolution 1441, one of the things it requires of Iraq is their allowance of this kind of aerial surveillance. So, it's just one more area where the burden here, sir, is not on us, the burden, sir, is on Iraq.

Q: Mr. Grossman, thank you very much.

A: Thank you, sir.

Q: I think I have to go now because we are under a time strain.

A: Thanks a lot.

Q: Thank you very much.

Moderator: We would now like to invite Mexico to join in.

Leonardo Valero: My name is Leonardo Valero from Reforma Daily in Mexico. Apart from the disagreements in terms of time, countries like France, Germany and Mexico are asking for more time for the UN inspectors, Apart from that, do you think there's a common understanding of what does the compliance with 1441 resolution mean for all the members of the Security Council?

A: Yes sir, I think that compliance means, as it states in paragraph 4 of the resolution, that Iraq has to give a full and complete and truthful declaration which they have not done, and the phrase says, and they have to cooperate with the inspectors and I believe Secretary Powell's presentation yesterday proved to me, anyway-I'd be interested in your view-that they are not cooperating with the inspectors. That's the standard. It's a very clear sentence, and it's a declaration and cooperation. And that's why the secretary yesterday concluded that they are in further material breach. I believe that many of the foreign ministers, and I believe that the majority of the Council, recognize that, because they voted for it fifteen to nothing.

Q: Does the evidence presented yesterday prove that the United States' investigations are like in a more advanced state than the ones from the inspectors at the UN?

A: Perhaps they are in the sense that, don't forget, until November there had not been inspectors in Iraq for four years. It's important I think for your readers to recognize that for four years because the council was divided, there were no inspectors in Iraq, and so yes, we kept our information flow coming from Iraq. We kept satellites flying over Iraq; we kept being interested in what was going on in Iraq. So in that sense, yes, we have newer information, better information, but it is only because, and I repeat this please, that Iraq did not have any inspectors for four years, and that's why this was so dangerous.

Q: Apart from the reactions inside the Security Council yesterday, what happened this morning in the NATO headquarters? Were you able (indecipherable) their presentation of evidence?

A: We wanted NATO to meet today and we were hoping that NATO would agree today to begin planning for the possible participation of NATO in some fashion if there has to be military activity and for the defense of Turkey. This was first proposed by us on the third or fourth of December by Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz in Brussels. You'll remember that after the Afghan conflict began, NATO was very unhappy that it didn't participate. And so we would like NATO to consider how it might participate in this case if there's a conflict. Secretary-General Robertson reported today that he put this under what's called a "silence procedure," which means that if nobody objects before next Monday, then this planning will go ahead, and I think that's a step forward. I would have preferred if they had agreed clearly and cleanly today-that was not possible-but I think the idea there's a silence procedure until Monday is good.

Q: After this presentation of evidence, are you expecting any specific reaction from the Mexican government?

A: Mexico is a democratic country and I would assume that Mexico in it's government would listen to public opinion, would consider the evidence, and I would assume that the next time the Security Council gets together, your permanent representative or your representative there would have something to say. It wouldn't really be for me to say how and when Mexico should respond.

Daniel Millan: Sir, I'm Daniel Millan. I am also from Reforma newspaper. Probably you already know the Mexican public opinion is mostly against a war between the United States and Iraq, but could you say to the Mexican common people why it's important to the people to have this war with Iraq.

A: I think, Mr. Millan, if I had a chance to speak to the Mexican people the first thing I would say is that the American people are not in favor of a war with Iraq if we don't need one. So, I want to be clear here that there's no one who says that war is the only option. There's no one who says that we're on a drive to war. You follow our politics and you know that last July and August of the year 2002 there was all this talk of what was the United States going to do. Well, President Bush answered that question on the twelfth of September by going to the United Nations and saying, it's not about the United States, it's about the international community. It's not about the United States; it's about the United Nations. And so I would say to the Mexican people, first of all, that we don't want a war either, that our purpose here is to try to solve this problem peacefully. The second thing I would say to the Mexican people is that we're in a paradox, if you will, a dilemma of force, which is that we believe that the only way Saddam Hussein will disarm peacefully is if he believes we are prepared to disarm him with a military action. I ask you to accept the argument that the reason there are inspectors in Iraq today is that the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 unanimously. If it hadn't passed it unanimously, Saddam Hussein would have said, "I'll just throw this in the trash. Another Security Council resolution I don't need to abide by." But because they passed it unanimously, we have inspectors in Iraq today. That's a good thing. The question is now, how do you move from inspections to disarmament. And I believe the way to move from inspections to disarmament is to have a military coalition ready to enforce 1441. That's a paradox. That means you have to be ready for war to avoid a war. And third, I would say to people in Mexico that the kinds of threat that Secretary Powell outlined yesterday -- anthrax, VX gas, botulinum toxin -- these are not things that have a geographic name to them. They're not things that can only happen in New York or Pennsylvania or Washington, D.C. These kinds terrorist actions could be carried out anywhere in the world. So, as Mexico is an important country, as Mexico plays a key role on the UN Security Council, as U.S.-Mexico relations are so close and so important, that Mexico now commands a place on the world stage. And so Mexico now has global responsibilities and not just responsibilities to Mexico. You're a member of the Security Council. And so this is a global threat, it could happen anywhere, it ought to have some impact, I believe, on you and your readers. Just to be clear again, war is a last resort. We hope to deal with this peacefully, but the way to deal with this peacefully is to be prepared to enforce that resolution. Because Mexico now represents so much on the Security Council and is so important, we think it ought to take a global view of this terrorist threat.

Q: So what you are trying to say is that Iraq is also a threat for Mexico, not only for the United States?

A: I believe that Iraq is a threat to the entire world because of its combination of weapons of mass destruction and support for terrorism.

Q: If the Mexican government position pursued looking for a second resolution in the Security Council, will the United States feel disappointed about it?

A: I'm sorry; I didn't catch the first part, sir.

Q: If the Mexican government pursued on asking for a second resolution from the Security Council, will the United States feel disappointed about that position?

A: Our position, of course, is that UN Security Council Resolution 1441 provides all the authority that's necessary. We do not believe a second Security Council Resolution is necessary because 1441 calls only for a second meeting of the Security Council. But sir, as I answered the question from our German friend, we have said that we'd be open to consideration of a second resolution. As I said to our German colleague and I'll say to you, that in our country that's a decision for our president. He will assess what happened at the Security Council yesterday and then decide what the position of the United States is.

Q: Some of the doubts of the countries that have asked for more time, like France, Germany or Mexico, have been fears of a greater state of instability in the zone in the case of a war. Has the United States contemplated this fully, this risk?

A: We have contemplated the risks, and as I say, sir, that's why we'd like to do this without a conflict. But again, the only way to do this without a conflict is with a very, very unified Security Council, and that unity be founded on the demand, backed up by the possibility of military force, that Saddam Hussein comply with 1441. And so, sure, we have tried our very best to think through the implications. We're in close consultation with countries like Turkey, countries like Jordan, countries like Saudi Arabia, Israel. We are mindful of all of these challenges and that's why we'd like Saddam Hussein to peacefully meet his obligations under 1441.

Q: Sir, do you think that a probable difference between Mexico and the United States in the Security Council could affect in any way the bilateral relationship?

A: Again, Mexico has to make its own decision. And Mexico will make its own decision as a democracy, and Mexico will make its own decision as a great country, and Mexico will make its own decision in its national interest. But that's for Mexicans to decide, not for me to decide. We'll see. I hope at the end of the day that people in Mexico and the government in Mexico will be convinced by what Secretary Powell had to say, will be convinced by our commitment to disarming Saddam Hussein peacefully, and we'll be part of a unified Security Council. That's what I hope will happen.

Q: Mexican public opinion was very touched last week when the U.S. representative in the UN said that they didn't want to hear what Mexico had to say. What can you say to Mexican people about that?

A: I've never heard such a thing. One of the reasons I wanted to be with you all this afternoon was to have exactly this conversation. I've had the good fortune to be in Mexico, I've had the good fortune to meet before with the Mexican press, and I have the good fortune now. We're very interested in what Mexico thinks. Mexico is, as I say, a great country, a great neighbor, and a member of the UN Security Council.

Q: Sir, I understand that you want to avoid a war, but in the scenario that we have a war, what would you expect from Mexico? Oil, helping in support, more security in borders?

A: The first part of your question was right. I think that's all hypothetical. The issue now is keeping the Security Council unified around 1441. I don't have the slightest doubt that if anything different were to happen that the United States and Mexico would work together completely on this, both for Mexico's interest and for the interests of the United States.

Q: What should Mexico do to keep the Security Council unified?

A: I would hope that Mexico would be able to recognize the power of the evidence that Secretary Powell gave yesterday. I would hope that the Mexican government would welcome the report of Dr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei on the fourteenth of February. And I hope that the Mexican government would continue to clearly, clearly, clearly demand of the Iraqi regime that meets its obligations under UN Security Council Resolution 1441. That doesn't mean, with all due respect, that we should just keep inspecting, it means disarming. That's a big difference and perhaps, if we could all start talking about disarming rather than inspections, we'd get a clearer message out to Saddam Hussein.

Q: Thank you very much.